DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Figures 1 + 2 in the reply filed on 07/02/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has withdrawn claims 2, 4, and 10-17 as being directed to a non-elected species. However, claim 3 recites “the elongated body comprises fibers extending along the longitudinal axis”. This feature is described in Paragraph [00045] of applicant’s specification and is depicted in Figure 15; the feature is not disclosed in the elected species of Figures 1 + 2.
Accordingly, claim 3 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “the length of strip” should be “the length of the strip”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehmann (US 4284091).
Regarding claim 1, Ehmann discloses a device for styling hair (Figures 1-4), the device comprising:
an elongated body (1a) extending along a longitudinal axis (A) and having an outer surface (exterior surface) and a first end (top end with respect to Figure 4) and second end (bottom end with respect to Figure 4) oppositely disposed, the elongated body is adapted to receive a plurality of hair strands wrapped around the outer surface between the first end and second end (“uniformly winding the hair tress into the depressions between the convolutions of the helically extending rib, downwardly from the top, that is to say towards the hair ends”, refer to Column 1, lines 33-37; wherein, based on the figures, the helically extending rib extends between the first and second ends); and
a strip (12) having a length (vertical dimension with respect to Figure 4) and a width (cross-sectional thickness dimension, extension primarily in the horizontal direction), wherein the length is longer than the width (refer to Figure 4), wherein the length of strip extends along the longitudinal axis (the limitation “the length of the strip extends along the longitudinal axis” is interpreted in light of applicant’s specification, as requiring that the strip extends longitudinally, and not necessarily along the actual axis; referring to Figure 4, the strip extends vertically/longitudinally) from a first end (top end that is directly coupled to the elongated body, refer to Figure 4) to a second end (bottom end with respect to Figure 4) of the strip, wherein the first end and the second end of the strip are attached to the elongated body proximate to the first end of the elongated body (referring to Figure 4, the second end of the strip is connected to the first end of the elongated body, indirectly, by the first end of the strip) which defines a first portion (the first portion of the elongated body is that portion of the elongated body that corresponds to the strip, refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below) of the elongated body having a first length (L1, refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below), wherein the elongated body further comprises a second portion (portion immediately adjacent the first portion, refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below) extending from the second end of the strip to the second end of the elongated body (refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below), wherein the second portion has a second length (L2, refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below) that is longer than the first length of the first portion (L2>L1, refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below), wherein the strip has an inner surface (surface of the strip facing the elongated body), the inner surface of the strip and a portion of the outer surface of the elongated body defining an opening (refer to rotated and annotated Figure 4, below) having a length (L3) extending along the longitudinal axis (the limitation “extending along the longitudinal axis” is interpreted in light of applicant’s specification as not requiring that the length lies along the longitudinal axis, but rather that the length extends longitudinally; referring to the rotated and annotated Figure 4, below, the opening’s length, L3, extends horizontally/in the longitudinal direction), the opening adapted to receive the plurality of hair strands and secure the hair strands between the inner surface of the strip and the portion of the outer surface of the elongated body (“narrow passageway D…through which a hair tress can be passed…thus serving to hold the hair curler on the hair”, refer to Column 2, lines 9-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
1220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmann in view of Eagle (AU 715644B3).
Regarding claim 5, Ehmann discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 1, as applied above. Ehmann does not disclose wherein the length of the opening is from 0.5 inch to 4 inches. Rather, Ehmann is silent to the particular dimensions of the device; however, the opening is depicted as being approximately 1/6th the total length of the device. Although the drawings may not be to scale, they can still be relied upon for teaching the general conditions of the claim because the overall relationship is depicted.
Eagle discloses a similar device for styling hair (Figures 1-6) comprising an elongated body (10) and a strip (15 OR 15 + 16), wherein the elongated body has a length between 10 and 20 cm (refer to Page 4, lines 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device such that the total length of the elongated body is between 10 and 20 cm, as taught by Eagle, since such a modification would have involved combining prior elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a hair device having a length sufficient enough to receive a length of hair thereon.
Modifying Ehmann’s device such that the elongated body has a length between 10-20cm or approximately 3.9 – 7.8 inches, provides the strip, being approximately 1/6th the total length of the elongated body to be approximately 0.65 inches – 1.3 inches, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Ehmann discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 1, as applied above. Ehmann does not disclose wherein the strip is comprised of an elastic material. Rather, Ehmann is silent to the particular material or mechanical properties of the strip.
Eagle discloses a similar device for styling hair (Figures 1-6) comprising an elongated body (10) and a strip (15 OR 15 + 16), where the strip “is biased against the body, and which can be lifted slightly to allow hair to be clamped” (refer to the Abstract), i.e. the strip is elastic. Providing an elastic strip permits the user to more easily push a clump of hair through the opening. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device such that the strip is formed of an elastic material, as taught by Eagle, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of permitting a user to more easily insert a clump of hair through the opening.
Regarding claim 18, Ehmann discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 1, as applied above. Ehmann does not disclose wherein a portion of the elongated body is tapered approaching the first end of the elongated body.
Eagle discloses a similar device for styling hair (Figures 1-6) comprising an elongated body (10) and a strip (15 OR 15 + 16), comprising a first end (top end with respect to Figures 1, and 4-6) and a second end (bottom end with respect to Figures 1, and 4-6) where the elongated body is tapered along an entire length thereof, including approaching the first end of the elongated body. Providing a tapered elongated body like the one taught by Eagle permits a user to achieve a curl that narrows toward it’s free end. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device such that a portion of the elongated body is tapered approaching the first end of the elongated body, as taught by Eagle, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of enabling a user to achieve a curl that narrows toward a free end thereof.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmann in view of West (US 0944226).
Regarding claim 6, Ehmann discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 1, as applied above. Ehmann does not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the strip proximate to the first end of the strip is permanently attached to the elongated body. Rather, Ehmann is silent to the particular attachment means between the strip and the elongated body but the strip appears to be protruding from the elongated body.
West discloses a similar device for styling hair (Figures 1-2), comprising an elongated body (1) extending along a longitudinal direction (horizontal direction with respect to Figure 2) and a strip (4) attached to a first end (right end with respect to Figure 2) thereof the strap and the elongated body defining an opening therebetween (refer to Figure 2, wherein an opening is depicted at a bottom of the elongated body, 1, between the elongated body and the strip, 4, wherein a clump of hair is disposed therein) for which to place a user’s hair (see Figure 2). The first end being permanently attached via a kerf and adhesive (the limitation “permanently attached” is interpreted in light of applicant’s specification, wherein adhesive is defined as one permanent attachment means, see paragraph [00040] of applicant’s specification; refer to West Column 2, lines 59-60 which states that the strip is affixed via friction and “suitable adhesive material”), thereby preventing the strip from becoming detached from the elongated body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device such that a portion of the strip proximate to the first end of the strip is permanently attached to the elongated body via a kerf and adhesive, as taught by West, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of coupling two components of a hair styling device and since such a modification provides the advantage of preventing the strip from being detached from the elongated body.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ehmann and West disclose the device for styling hair according to claim 6, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 6, the strip of Ehmann was modified with the teachings of West to be attached via a kerf and adhesive, wherein a portion of the strip is inserted into the kerf, the kerf being at a zero degree angle with the longitudinal axis (see West Figure 2, wherein the kerf, 2, is shown to extend substantially along the longitudinal direction of the elongated body) and that portion of the kerf with adhesive defines an end of the opening (see West Figure 2) where that end is at a 0 degree angle with respect to the longitudinal axis (see West Figure 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ehmann and West as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Goodwin (US6006759).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ehmann and West discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 6, wherein the portion of the strip is permanently attached to the elongated body with at least one of stitching, gluing, stapling, or adhesive, wherein the at least one of stitching, gluing, stapling, or adhesive forms a line extending along the longitudinal axis (per the modification addressed in claim 6, the fastening means of West was incorporated into Ehmann’s device such that the strip is attached via a kerf and adhesive).
The combination does not thus far disclose that the permanent adhesive attachment defines an end of the opening below the first end of the elongated body and the first end of the strip.
Goodwin discloses a similar device for styling hair (Figures 1-7) comprising an elongated body (10) having a first end (12) and a second end (18), and a strip (30) having a first end (32) and a second end (34), wherein the strip is disposed within a kerf (14) such that an opening (space between the strip and the body) of the strip is disposed below the first end of the strip and the first end of the elongated body (refer to Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Ehmann and West such that the permanent adhesive attachment defines an end of the opening below the first end of the elongated body and the first end of the strip, as taught by Goodwin, since such a modification would have involved rearranging of parts and it has been held that rearranging of parts is within the level of ordinary skill.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmann in view of Longoria (US 5309928).
Regarding claim 19, Ehmann discloses a method of styling hair using the device of claim 1, the method comprising the following steps:
pulling a first plurality of hair strands through the opening (“a hair tress can be passed, the hook serving to hold the hair curler on the hair”, refer to Column 2, lines 10-12);
wrapping the first plurality of hair strands around the elongated body in a first direction (“helical rib for receiving a tress of hair”, refer to Abstract; additionally refer to Figure 4, wherein the helical rib extends along a length of the elongated body and that helical rib coincides with the opening; thus, hair disposed in the area between the helical rib is also disposed within the opening); and
securing the wrapped first plurality of hair strands with a fastener (“a clasp member 4 with the aid of which the hair tress wound around the rod 1 can be fixed, is provided”).
Ehmann does not disclose:
wrapping a second plurality of hair strands around the elongated body in a second direction different than the first direction; and
securing the wrapped second plurality of hair strands with a fastener.
Longoria discloses a similar device for styling hair (10, Figures 1-3) and method of using said device, wherein the device comprises an elongated body (20 +30 + 40). A first portion of the elongated body (30) comprises a helical groove in a first direction (refer to Figure 1) that is configured to accept a first plurality of hair therein, to impart a helical curl thereto, wherein a first plurality of hairs are wrapped about this first portion of the elongated body (hairs on left side of the user’s head, refer to Figure 2). Longoria’s elongated body further comprises a second portion (20) comprising a helical groove in a second direction (refer to Figure 1) and a second plurality of hairs are wrapped about the elongated body in the second direction, where the second direction is different from the first direction (hairs on the right side of the user’s head, refer to Figure 2), so as to impart a curl to a user’s hair such that curls on a right side of the user’s head are oriented differently from the curls of the hair on the left side of the user’s head. Longoria further discloses securing the wrapped second plurality of hairs with a fastener (60, refer to Figure 2, where portion 20 of the elongated body comprises fastener 60 disposed at a bottom thereof). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device and method such that the elongated body comprises right handed and left handed helices on the same elongated body, and the method of use comprises a step of wrapping a second plurality of hair strands about the elongated body in a direction different from the first direction and securing the second plurality of hairs with a fastener, as taught by Longoria, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of imparting a curl to a user’s hair wherein the hairs disposed on a first side of the user’s head curl in a first direction and the hairs on the user’s head on a second side curl in a second, different direction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ehmann and Longoria as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Elkouby (US2022/0346515).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ehmann and Longoria discloses the method of styling hair according to claim 19, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein the method further comprises wrapping a third plurality of hair strands around the elongated body in the first direction, wherein strands of the first plurality of hair strands, strands of the second plurality of hair strands and strands of the third plurality of hair strands are wrapped around the elongated body in an alternating fashion.
Elkouby discloses a similar device (100, Figures 1-16) and method (refer at least to Paragraphs [0008-0009]) of using said device, wherein the device comprises an elongated body having a first portion (104, Figure 2) and a second portion (106, Figure 2) wherein the method comprises wrapping a first portion plurality of hair strands (210b, Figure 4) about the elongated body (refer to Figure 4) in a first direction (refer to Figure 4) and wrapping a second plurality of hair strands (210a) about the elongated body (refer to Figure 4) in a direction different from that of the first plurality of hair strands and finally, wrapping a third plurality of hair strands (220b, Figure 4) around the elongated body in the same direction as that of the first plurality of hair strands (refer to Figure 4). Merriam-Webster defines alternating as “occurring by turns or in succession”. Elkouby’s method comprises “wrapping the first tress in a direction around the flexible curling element”, and “wrapping the second tress in the same direction of the first tress” and “Selecting a first tress of hair on the second side section of hair and wrapping” about the elongated body in a direction different from that of the first and second plurality of hair strands (refer to Paragraph [0008] and Figure 4), where the wrapping of the first, second and third plurality of hair strands is performed in succession, thereby alternating, per the definition provided by Merriam-Webster. The configuration of Elkouby’s device permits the use of more of the user’s hair to be wrapped about the styling device, thereby reducing the number of curlers needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the combination of Ehmann and Longoria to comprise a step of wrapping a third plurality of hair strands around the elongated body in the first direction, wherein strands of the first plurality of hair strands, strands of the second plurality of hair strands and strands of the third plurality of hair strands are wrapped around the elongated body in an alternating fashion, as taught by Elkouby, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of imparting a curl to a user’s hair while using a reduced number of curlers by wrapping multiple strands of the user’s hair about the curler/device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmann in view of Parsons (US4955401).
Regarding claim 21, Ehmann discloses the device for styling hair according to claim 1, as applied above. Ehmann does not disclose wherein the first end and the second end of the strip are permanently attached to the elongated body. Rather, Ehmann is silent to the particular connection means of the strip and the elongagted body.
Parsons discloses a similar device for styling hair (30, Figures 2-4B) comprising an elongated body (32) and a strip (60) attached to a first end (top end, refer to Figure 2) of the elongated body, wherein the strip defines an opening (56 + 70) and wherein a first end (66) and a second end (68) of the strip are permanently attached to the elongated body (“curler 30 is preferably manufactured as an integral, molded plastic device”, refer to Column 3, lines 56-57), since the second end is permanently attached to the first end and the first end is permanently attached to the elongated body, the second end is also permanently attached to the elongated body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehmann’s device such the first end and the second end of the strip are permanently attached to the elongated body, as taught by Parsons, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods and since such a modification provides the advantage of preventing the strip from being detached from the elongated body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-9, and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772